Skip to main content

what the heck were those teabagger talking about the other day regarding being taxed too much?

Jump to link to the chart that shows they are full of crap since those white folk in the Red States get more money from Feds than they pay out in taxes

Blue States pay more and we are not complaining are we?

This is such bullshit and makes me so mad!!

Check out who gets most fed dollars here:

I have my own opinion about why these asses are out there with their sinage.

They cannot stand the fact that a black man is in the white house with his black family!


You got aholes out there talking about secession and some of these Red States are on a roll passing bills in their legislature to get the ball rolling see here:

All of a sudden after 43 white Presidents they all of a sudden are up in arms against the black President so much that they actually want to break away from a whole country.

This drip, drip of bullshit is making me so effing mad!!!

Those teabaggers were out there dog whistling all over the place with their racists signs against Obama because they are mad, not about the taxes, because they are not paying alot, they are mad at the awesome blackness up in the White house.


I am just glad that some white folk are finally standing up and calling it like it is.  See Jeaneane Garofalo on Keith here:

She is speaking truth to power in this piece.

These people are not patriotic.

They are committing treason by calling for secession.

It is one thing to dissent but calling for pre-civil war shit to happen in this country is beyond the effing pale and they should be called out and called out hard.

We have to kick their asses hard to the curb in 2010 because that is the only way they will finally get it.

They are sore effin' losers and I am sick and tired of their bullshite!!!

I am going to make sure I am on the frontlines next election to take their asses out!


Pissed off and not taking this shite anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted to cherbear on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Teabaggers don't matter... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cas2, Dvalkure, Billdbq

      You are correct when you point out that teabaggers are upset because they are racist scum.

      But the answer to whether racists matter was given on november 4th 2008. Politically, they don't.

      They are irrelevant. Nothing turns on their existence.

      Gender neutral marriage. NOW.

      by Montreal Progressive on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:07:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Whoa! It's ok, take it easy (0+ / 0-)

      After the red states either sucede from the union or refuse the stimulus money, there will be that much more to go around in the blue states.  And for those who stay in the US and take the money, many will be investing in education, which will show them the error in their ways.  Either way, we win.

      Especially don't worry about Texas suceding.  Or succeeding.  If they do, we could go after the tyrant that just left the White House with few qualms.

    •  For those of us who like charts (6+ / 0-)

      I threw this together:

      Unfortunately, photobucket reduced the size of the image. Hope it's still legible enough for most.

      "Treat people like you want to be treated. Life is fragile." Torii Hunter 4-9-2009

      by Sagebrush Bob on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:11:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What you've got is people with a gross (6+ / 0-)

    inferiority complex for which they try to compensate by acting superior.

    Treating people who feel inferior as equals doesn't really satisfy.  Certainly, rational discourse won't do it.

    Some problems just can't be solved.  The best we can hope for is that the next generation won't be subject to the kind of intimidation that makes people feel inferior.  The Sesame Street generation has made a good start.

    How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

    by hannah on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:34:56 AM PDT

  •  it's hard to tell.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    what you're actually angry about.  

    Red States tend to be states with a large military presence, and these bases get lots of tax dollars.  It is true that, for example, Georgia gets more than it pays.   But are you arguing that because GA has Fort Benning (and Stewart, and Gordon, and McPherson, and Gillem et al) it is somehow benefiting disproportionately from federal tax dollars?

    If so, that's an argument that won't take you too far.  These bases have to be someplace, so places like GA, TX and SC have them.  In a way, a high tax-paying area like Long Island is paying for the benefit of NOT having a military base in the middle of it.  Imagine the loss of wealth to Long Islanders if the federal government decided to move a large Army or navy base to LI.  This would not be offset by the influx of tax dollars.

    The tax imbalance, with regard to military spending, is actually a benefit to the higher-payers in the form of property values.  In places like rural GA or TX, the military base represents wealth that the area would not organically develop.   Thus, the apparent imbalance.

    •  send this reply to them to explain i am angry (0+ / 0-)

      at the fact that they cannot admit their racism and are using taxes is just not the full story regarding their complaints

    •  Hmm . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pd, NotGeorgeWill

      I live in California, and I seem to recall having seen one or two military bases scattered around the state somewhere . . .

      As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

      by occams hatchet on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:47:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There sure are... (0+ / 0-)

        Bases in NY too.  Fort Hamilton is in Brooklyn, for example.   And I know of several in CA including a large navy base and several army installations.

        But most of the big big bases are in the south or southeast, in areas that would not have organically become wealthy.  So the tax imbalance in those states is purely attributable to the military presence. The fact that there are several large bases in CA only proves my point: the influx of tax dollars from the military bases is not significant.  It only seems that way because most of the states receiving more than they pay are poorer states.  

        It's just fun with statistics.  

        •  "Most of the big bases are in the south (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crashing Vor

          or southeast"? Really?

          Check out this map (large PDF file) and tell me where the large bases are.

          And I'm not sure what you meant by this:

          But most of the big big bases are in the south or southeast, in areas that would not have organically become wealthy.  So the tax imbalance in those states is purely attributable to the military presence.

          In any event, until one has complete statistics with a breakdown of the federal dollars received, it is impossible to determine what goes to military versus other programs (e.g., Social Security, AFDC, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). I'm guessing the states at the top of The Tax Foundation's chart (linked in the diary) probably have a mix that's pretty much reflective of the nation as a whole. But that's just a guess at this point.

          As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

          by occams hatchet on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  map is only partially helpful (0+ / 0-)

            The physically large bases (in NV, for example) are nowhere near the cost (i.e. tax dollar receipt) of a place like Fort Bragg, NC, Fort Benning GA or Fort Hood TX.  Throw in Fort Campbell KY and a few others in GA and TX and you've got well over half of the Army soldiers stationed in the USA in just a few "red state" bases.  I probably should have specified "large" in regards to number of people housed, rather than physical size.  

            Those states are on balance, poor.  If you've ever been to Fayetteville NC or Columbus, GA, you know what I mean.  So the tax contributions of those states are going to be lower than states with massive (well, less massive now) tax generators like NY and CA.  

            Finally (and this is not directed solely at you) the base is not always a net benefit.  If a navy base were established in Palm Beach (my home community), it would be a staggering loss of wealth.  This is not true for, say, Killeen, TX.  

    •  Bases house lots of EMPLOYED people, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, NotGeorgeWill

      purchase goods and services from local vendors, and act as centers for business development ("Cut that hair, soldier!"  "Let's get a beer."  Etc.).

      To have a base in your community is a net economic gain.  

      Finally, new songs up at da web site! Also. . . grumble grumble mutter mutter

      by Crashing Vor on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:59:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diary title is misleading (3+ / 0-)

      at least as far as the supporting link does not rank states by the amount of federal tax money they receive, simply by the ratio of federal $$s spent in the state relative to the $$s of taxes sent to Washington by that state.

      Thus, poor states tend to top the list since much of the income tax burden is borne by the upper 40% of so of the population.  Some states don't have that many earners in that category on a nation-wide basis.

      •  They get more than they give (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Which wouldn't bother me, but then they whinge about being taxed.  Whenever I see my tax bill I silently tell them to all sod off (and no I am not in the top 10 percent of earners, I don't even break six figures but I pay a LOT).

        There are bagels in the fridge

        by Sychotic1 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But a ranking by "the most" (0+ / 0-)

          federal money received

          has three of the top four as "blue" states - thus rendering the title of this diary grossly misleading.

          Really, it's not that the red states receive so much, it's just that they pay in so little . . .

          •  That may be misleading (0+ / 0-)

            but they are federal welfare states.  I am not against federal welfare, but then to turn around and complain about it...meh...I pay a pretty decent amount of federal and state taxes yet my state has been short on money for roads, schools etc. for years.

            There are bagels in the fridge

            by Sychotic1 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:16:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  True (0+ / 0-)

            So the diarist should rephrase the title.  

            It certainly doesn't negate the point of the diary.  

            The only reasonable question to ask is "How many federal dollars do you get in return for your federal dollars?"

            "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

            by otto on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:17:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure if that's a reasonable question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              for example, there are legitimate reasons why some states get - or perhaps even "deserve"  - more than other states.

              Hawaii for example (unlike Alabama or Georgia) is a critical cog in maintaining the Global American Military Empire. Thus, we cannot begrudge them all their $$s.

              Other states, Connecticut for example, have lots of unseemly Wall Street types living there, thus they probably richly deserve to have more tax $$s sucked into the federal treasury.  If for no other reason than the bankers now need to be bailed out.  Thus, I suspect in a year or two, these rankings will be stood on their heads as huge influx of fed $$s make their way into the NJ/NY/CT area . ..

              •  In reference to tax complaining (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                It's a reasonable question.  

                If the question is whether or not some states have reasons for getting more money back, then there shouldn't be a debate.  

                However, if it is centered on the issue of people who are claiming they are taxed too highly and who claim that socialism is as bad as being a Nazi or a Fascist, then the question is certainly legitimate, because it demonstrates an essential unwillingness to incorporate the information that they are the beneficiaries of wealth redistribution in a way that I and my state are not.  

                If those same people were to say that the government has a legitimate purpose in distributing money throughout the economy, then I'd be more willing to listen.  

                "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

                by otto on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:44:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I totally agree (and I think this is your (0+ / 0-)

                  point, somewhat) that those complaining about taxes really shouldn't be because they are disproportionally beneficiaries. . . .

                  But they complain simply because they are moronic malcontents . . . not necessarily because there is something horribly wrong with the way federal tax $$s are spread across the country (for political reasons, it is necessary to distribute it widely).

                  To remedy this problem, one of two things would have to be done (outside of the issue of military bases, the importance of which is overblown in this discussion, IMO).  Either, the relatively poor red states would have to be taxed more, or the relatively wealthy blue states taxed less (Hello Flat tax?).  OR benefits could be pro-rated based on cost of living, or something like that.

                  I'm not sure that a progressive community would go for the first, perhaps the second would engender a more interesting/productive discussion . . .

              •  Rankings are from 2007 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Roadbed Guy

                So, they may or may not be reflective of anything having to do with Wall Street shenanigans.

                "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

                by otto on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:45:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The issue isn't money received, nor (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            even money received per capita, but ratio of money received to money put in (or, as the chart you linked to labels it, "return on tax dollar"), and in that measure, from your link, 8 of the top 10 states are red.

            As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

            by occams hatchet on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You say . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              occams hatchet

              The issue isn't money received,

              well, maybe not, but a moron like myself reads the title, and almost thinks that

              Chart of States get most fed dollars: Red States top list

              dollars and money are closely related.

              i.e., if a state gets the most dollars, that is synomous with getting the most money.

              But perhaps some states are getting financial transfers from the feds in Yen or Yuan or Pesos these days that cloud the issue . . .

    •  I reject this argument (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hedwig, NotGeorgeWill

      Because the blue states that had bases had them shut down.  California used to have a great deal of bases and they still are a donator state.

      There are bagels in the fridge

      by Sychotic1 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How does the coincide with (0+ / 0-)

      states with a great many military facilities? Like CA or FL?

      Would consider it's more about services and income than with military base locations.

    •  Actually this isn't true... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChurchofBruce, dougymi, NotGeorgeWill

      the South has received preferential treatment when it comes to base closing, particularly during the George W. Bush era (to help keep the Blue states in line they demilitarized the Northern Blue states while protecting the Red States).  Most states would love to have/keep their military bases as that's a free cash flow into the region.

      But its also inaccurate as a whole because the federal highway funding system overwhelming favors these red states, so that they could keep their taxes below the replacement of infrastructure level.  So in Michigan, I get to see the jobs leave for the South due to artificially low taxes that are underwritten by my state, and others like it.

      "Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut

      by Mister Gloom on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:12:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've got some bases up here in WA (0+ / 0-)

      We sure aren't getting more back than we pay in.

      We also have Boeing.  You'd think that would increase our draw on the federal government.

      The argument seems to make sense, but then it kind of falls apart.

      Maybe you could compare the number of military dollars going into the states to separate out the mil.  dollars from other dollars.

      "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

      by otto on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:15:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe that's because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the base closings of the past couple decades was aimed straight at the north and northeast?

      "I used to have goals. They were *evil* goals, but they were *goals*."--Dr. Doofenschmirtz

      by ChurchofBruce on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:45:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Taxed too much? (0+ / 0-)

    While the tea-baggers certainly talked about high taxes I thought their big gripe was too much debt, which would lead to the need for even higher levels of taxation. We certainly bashed Bush on that topic when the repugs were in charge.

    Regarding the map, the South has a disproportionate number of military bases. There are many historical reasons for this, warmer weather, more available open space, and supportive communities to name a few.  

    Your diary makes many good points which are obscured, rather than strengthened, by the pervasive profanity.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:43:00 AM PDT

  •  I told a tea bagger to write his Governor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and try reading the Bills passed by our Federal Gov before crying "Galt!"

    Douchebags for tea bags! FOX/GOP = NO! 09

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 11:50:25 AM PDT

  •  No more Red State crap. I'm tired of it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NotGeorgeWill, stella0710, graycat13

    As Obama said, we're not the Red States or Blue States of America, we're the UNITED States of America.

    Besides, most states have some red and some blue in them in terms of elected officials, and all of them, even UT, OK, and DC, have some Democrats and some Republicans.

  •  Darn Welfare States (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    usin' up all my tax money!

    AK needs to stop giving her citizens a rebate and send the difference here!

  •  Well, not after 43 presidents (0+ / 0-)

    They did this before, you know.  We even fought a war about it.  Over 600,000 Americans died.

    Ten or so years ago some crazies went on a killing spree in Texas regarding the state's supposed right to secede.

    Todd Palin belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party.

    And don't forget Timothy McVeigh.

    They didn't like Clinton, either.  They didn't like Carter.  Hell, they shot Kennedy.

    I do feel the problem is being exacerbated by race, but 9 out of 10 of these people would still be upset if it was Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

    I believe Obama's "crimes" are as follows, and in this order.

    #1.  He's a Democrat.
    #2.  He's not a Republican.
    #3.  He's black.
    #4.  He's a black Democrat.
    #5.  He's got a foreign-sounding name.
    #6.  He's got a muslim-sounding name.
    #7.  Abortion / Not a Christian (regardless of facts)
    #8.  Did I mention he's a Democrat?  And black, too.

    If it were Clinton, you could replace "black" with "woman".  For Edwards, replace it with "trial lawyer".  Kerry was "elitist".  #5 and #6 would change, but they'd be replaced with other reasons.

    To believe this is all about race, you would need to believe these same people would still be protesting Alan Keyes or Clarance Thomas.

    Still, I'm glad you are fed up, and that you'll be on the front lines next time.

    I mean it's like these guys take pride in ignorance! It's like they like being ignorant.

    by math monkey on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:12:03 PM PDT

  •  Here's the top ten: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    New Mexico




    West Virginia

    North Dakota


    South Dakota




    New Mexico is the poorest state in the country, if you take into account cost of living, and West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are right up there, too.  I hardly object to disproportionate federal spending there.

    Virginia has a lot of federal presence and military bases.

    Then I see states with military or lots of federal lands or natural resources on the list on the list.

    -5.38, -5.90 Deus mihi iustitiam dabit.

    by cjallen on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:13:29 PM PDT

  •  race a huge part of their crap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I Think Some of What You Say is True (0+ / 0-)

    But, I bet we'd be hearing some version of this if Hillary Clinton was president.  Or any other Democrat.  It's just that having Obama in there clearly doing a much better job than Bush REALLY pisses them off.

    Ahhh . . . It's nice to feel like we're a cool country again.

    by Grumpy Young Man on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:25:39 PM PDT

  •  Lots of 'red' states have small populations. (4+ / 0-)

    Therefore less income for feds.

    Some have small populations and lots of agribusiness- lots of federal money coming in.

    Some have historically poor populations-medicaid and food stamps coming in.

    Anyone can do or say anything with just a table of statistics. Even 'teabaggers'.

    So what exactly is your point?

    Only that day dawns to which we are awake... Henry David Thoreau

    by graycat13 on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 12:28:29 PM PDT

  •  I talked to a local politician in Texas last week (2+ / 0-)

    He said that Perry's grandstanding aside, not one penny of stimulus money is being rejected in Texas.
    Not only is the state not going to secede, it's on the dole and the money will help to balance a weak state budget.  Anybody know about Alaska and Louisiana?  Too bad there couldn't have been some political litmus test for distribution of the funds.  

  •  It's about taking our money and giving it "them" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yoduuuh do or do not, petral

    I wish I could remember where I read this a few months ago...anybody know? The whole anti tax bullshit is about the government taking money from good, white hardworking folks and giving it to welfare queens and other misfits who are typically perceived as Black and/or Hispanic.  It's an old stereotype, promoted by the GOP...the bogeyman under the bed. These tea baggers are a seriously hostile irrational mob.  This cannot be healthy for the country even if they only represent 25%.

  •  I rarely see so much crap in one diary. (0+ / 0-)

    First of all, most of these discussions of "welfare states" or "which states give money and which states take money" reveals a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

    States do not pay taxes; people do.  How difficult is it to see that the more populous states are generally at one end of your chart and the least populous states are generally at the other end of the chart?  How difficult is it to figure out why that might be?  

    As for spending, surely it is not difficult to see that government services are more expensive to provide in rural areas.  In my state, simply delivering the mail is going to be quite a bit more expensive than it is in virtually any other state, because the mail has to be flown in to most of the Bush communities.  That is just one obvious example.

    Should less populous states get less government services because the flow of taxes to the treasury is less than it is in California or New York or New Jersey?  

    Second, it is ridiculous to paint all the teabaggers as racist.  There were tax protests on April 15 before Obama and there will be tax protests on April 15 after Obama.  The dwindling neoconservative movement cannot generate any noteworthy enthusiasm among their base, so they inflate the numbers of their protest by glomming on to a protest that will happen every year no matter who is in charge.  

    I just wish common sense were more common.

    Our long national nightmare is over.

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 01:21:24 PM PDT

  •  Iowa... always in the middle (0+ / 0-)

    Iowa ranks in the middle in just about every poll.

    Sure enough, we rank 24th in this one!

    We receive $1.10 per dollar, that's fine with me, and that's thanks to Senator Tom Harkin.
    He's always looking out for us.

    Strength through Peace.

    by Billdbq on Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 02:39:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site